I'm surprised someone as intelligent as you appear to be on some topics doesn't realize money is fungible, a fact that makes the Hyde Amendment (along with claims that X money given to Y organization is not going to pay for Z activity) a joke.

No, actually, contributions to Planned Parenthood are audited under extreme scrutiny, for obvious political reasons. Have you ever worked at a charity or NGO? The spending restrictions and auditing process are extremely controlled. The claim that once the money is in PP's hands they can do whatever they want with it is either grossly misinformed or it is a deliberate lie.

No, actually, contributions to Planned Parenthood are audited under extreme scrutiny, for obvious political reasons. Have you ever worked at a charity or NGO? The spending restrictions and auditing process are extremely controlled. The claim that once the money is in PP's hands they can do whatever they want with it is either grossly misinformed or it is a deliberate lie.

It amazes me that this trick has worked on you.

It works like this:

1. You start by getting $X to do so much of A, B, and C.
2. Then someone gives an additional $Y, but you cannot use it for A (or can only use it for C).

No problem. You re-allocate some of $X that was used for C (B & C) and use it for A then use all of $Y for C (or B & C).

1. You start by getting $X to do so much of A, B, and C.
2. Then someone gives an additional $Y, but you cannot use it for A (or can only use it for C).

No problem. You re-allocate some of $X that was used for C (B & C) and use it for A then use all of $Y for C (or B & C).

Neat huh?

If you think this isn't happening you're naive.

What you don't get is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. You don't like C? Don't give money to sources of $Y! No one who contributes to $Y has a problem with C. The source of $X is not changing that. Whether there is $X or not, some of $Y will go to C.

What you don't get is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. You don't like C? Don't give money to sources of $Y! No one who contributes to $Y has a problem with C. The source of $X is not changing that. Whether there is $X or not, some of $Y will go to C.

You don't get it (or are deliberately overlooking it). Furthermore, while I'm trying to clarify, you're clearly trying to obfuscate.

I'm showing how you can give to an organization that does A (even if you don't like A) and stipulate that your $ can only be used for B, but in effect it can still be used for A...indirectly.

just like gravity, that cannot legitimately be repealed or infringed by laws of man's invention.

We cannot undo gravity as its due to the laws of physics which we cannot abolish, yet we can break and abolish the laws governing human affairs which are of our own making.
So they are not the same.

Quote:

These are inalienable rights

Sorry to appear to nitpick but one cannot call life a right, although one can refer to a right to life, etc. Also, since anything inalienable cannot be alienated (obviously), any right that can be alienated (even if it shouldnt be) isnt inalienable.
Sorry about that.

Quote:

They were not invented by man. They simply are.

The notion of rights is human invention, and a good one if you ask me.
Unlike gravity, light, or electricity, which exist independently of us, were discovered and can be objectively observed.

As for mans natural state, if it actually exists in this world (rather than being some ideal thing) where can it be observed?

Shows your complete and utter ignorance, once again. There are no "abortion inducing drugs" sold in the US. The "morning after pill" prevents pregnancy before implantation. It is incapable of causing an abortion.

I see you took the bait. The above argument is one the looney left uses all the time. It's nothing more than semantics and a distraction. This isn't about what we call the drugs, or access to birth control, or women's rights, or women's health. It's about forcing religious organizations to pay for something that is against their faith.

Oh, and if you want to have the semantics argument: Tell me, does life begin at conception? Because if it does, the morning after pill IS an abortion inducing drug. Period.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Except the notion that something is a fully fledged human being once sperm meets egg is ludicrous in and of itself. You are begging the question that your definition of human life is the correct one.

Life begins at conception. Period. However, extremists like yourself can't or won't acknowledge that, because it undermines your positions. It would be nice if you had the intellectual honesty to admit that one fact, then commence the discussion on abortion, contraception, etc. But you can't. Because like most lefities, you will support anything that gets you closer to your goals.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Life begins at conception. Period. However, extremists like yourself can't or won't acknowledge that, because it undermines your positions. It would be nice if you had the intellectual honesty to admit that one fact, then commence the discussion on abortion, contraception, etc. But you can't. Because like most lefities, you will support anything that gets you closer to your goals.

You stinking republicans should not talk about contraception when today they had an inquest with Darrel Issa presiding and not one dam woman was on the panel to express their opinions.Don't bullshit people by saying one thing and mean another. Another Lousy republican ploy.

You stinking republicans should not talk about contraception when today they had an inquest with Darrel Issa presiding and not one dam woman was on the panel to express their opinions.Don't bullshit people by saying one thing and mean another. Another Lousy republican ploy.

Dude...shut up. I'm not affiliated with the people having the hearings. And secondly, you took your comment directly from the democratic member who made that same point. Are hearings on this issue needed. Of course not. Was the member being sanctimonious and stupid. Yes.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Dude...shut up. I'm not affiliated with the people having the hearings. And secondly, you took your comment directly from the democratic member who made that same point. Are hearings on this issue needed. Of course not. Was the member being sanctimonious and stupid. Yes.

Dude is a stupid word to use to start with. Again you republicans are always on the defensive when you are caught with your pants down.Don't blame the liberals for this you conservatives started this mess yourselves!

Dude is a stupid word to use to start with. Again you republicans are always on the defensive when you are caught with your pants down.Don't blame the liberals for this you conservatives started this mess yourselves!

What the hell are you babbling about? Also, I could care less about your opinion of the vocabulary I use. Also, I'm pretty sure you're a robot.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Life begins at conception. Period. However, extremists like yourself can't or won't acknowledge that, because it undermines your positions. It would be nice if you had the intellectual honesty to admit that one fact, then commence the discussion on abortion, contraception, etc. But you can't. Because like most lefities, you will support anything that gets you closer to your goals.

But some would say Human life begins later. Until then it's just a mass of tissue with potential. Are you saying that life begins with potential because you'd better try to outlaw condoms as well!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

You appear to be OK with killing in many circumstances. If I recall correctly, you are for the death penalty. You have been in favor of wars (which kill innocents--collateral damage is the nice term that obfuscates the true harm). What is it about a mass of cells sucking nutrients out of a woman that elevates it to a higher status?

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

You say this like it's a fact. It's an opinion. In fact, it's not even an opinion that is shared by the majority of the scientific community. In fact, the majority of the scientific community now defines conception as implantation, not fertilization. Yes, this definition has changed, perhaps by political motivations, perhaps even by moral motivations. But where the fuck do you think your definition of human life and conception come from? Thin air? Personal observation? Laughable.

The problem between these two schools of opinion is that one of them ignores the third factor, the woman.

As is the statement that life does not begin at conception. And yet those who believe it doesn't begin at conception quite frequently assert their opinion as if it were fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

In fact, it's not even an opinion that is shared by the majority of the scientific community.

Besides the fact that we don't determine facts by polling the opinion of some specific group of individuals (there's a name for that fallacy), the scientific community is not the only source of knowledge in the world.

More importantly though, scientific facts related to the humanness of an embryo (e.g., DNA, future growth, etc.) actually support the belief that human life begins at conception and that this is simply an early stage of development and maturity of a human-being. Arguably the "safer" position to hold (in terms of protecting human lives) would be to assume it is a human life until proven, conclusively that it is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

But where the fuck do you think your definition of human life and conception come from? Thin air? Personal observation? Laughable.

But where the fuck do you think your definition of human life and conception come from? Thin air? Personal observation? Laughable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

The problem between these two schools of opinion is that one of them ignores the third factor, the woman.

Actually that is irrelevant to the question of when life begins. It only becomes relevant when the question of what can or cannot (or should or should not) be allowed to be done with these two lives (the baby and the woman) comes into play.

As is the statement that life does not begin at conception. And yet those who believe it doesn't begin at conception quite frequently assert their opinion as if it were fact.

Besides the fact that we don't determine facts by polling the opinion of some specific group of individuals (there's a name for that fallacy), the scientific community is not the only source of knowledge in the world.

More importantly though, scientific facts related to the humanness of an embryo (e.g., DNA, future growth, etc.) actually support the belief that human life begins at conception and that this is simply an early stage of development and maturity of a human-being. Arguably the "safer" position to hold (in terms of protecting human lives) would be to assume it is a human life until proven, conclusively that it is not.

But where the fuck do you think your definition of human life and conception come from? Thin air? Personal observation? Laughable.

Actually that is irrelevant to the question of when life begins. It only becomes relevant when the question of what can or cannot (or should or should not) be allowed to be done with these two lives (the baby and the woman) comes into play.

So do you believe Human life begins at conception and from then on the product of that conception is the same as a Human and why ( be specific )?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

As is the statement that life does not begin at conception. And yet those who believe it doesn't begin at conception quite frequently assert their opinion as if it were fact.

Did I do that here? It's my opinion that life begins when a baby takes its first breath, but it's also my opinion that a viable life has value as well as an actual life. I think except in medical cases where the mother's life is at serious risk or in rare cases with a court order showing a valid excuse, abortion should be illegal after the first trimester. But this is my opinion, and I acknowledge that there are other well-meaning, valid opinions out there, and that this is a matter of debate, and of personal values and opinions, not of fact. SDW, who actually had the gall to call liberals 'elitist' and make a thread about it is saying explicitly in this tread that his opinion is the right opinion and that people with other opinions are in his very words, idiots.

Quote:

Besides the fact that we don't determine facts by polling the opinion of some specific group of individuals (there's a name for that fallacy), the scientific community is not the only source of knowledge in the world.

I wasn't saying that the scientific opinion is the only valid opinion. I was using scientific consensus to demonstrate that SDW's opinion is exactly that. An opinion.

Quote:

More importantly though, scientific facts related to the humanness of an embryo (e.g., DNA, future growth, etc.) actually support the belief that human life begins at conception and that this is simply an early stage of development and maturity of a human-being. Arguably the "safer" position to hold (in terms of protecting human lives) would be to assume it is a human life until proven, conclusively that it is not.

What kind of safety? Moral safety? That, my friend, is also a matter of opinion.

Quote:

But where the fuck do you think your definition of human life and conception come from? Thin air? Personal observation? Laughable.

I have presented my opinion as opinion.

Quote:

Actually that is irrelevant to the question of when life begins. It only becomes relevant when the question of what can or cannot (or should or should not) be allowed to be done with these two lives (the baby and the woman) comes into play.

Actually, the question of when life begins is irrelevant to te abortion debate.

It's my opinion that life begins when a baby takes its first breath, but it's also my opinion that a viable life has value as well as an actual life. I think except in medical cases where the mother's life is at serious risk or in rare cases with a court order showing a valid excuse, abortion should be illegal after the first trimester. But this is my opinion, and I acknowledge that there are other well-meaning, valid opinions out there, and that this is a matter of debate, and of personal values and opinions, not of fact.

Good for you. That position is a reasonable one for debate and discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

SDW, who actually had the gall to call liberals 'elitist' and make a thread about it is saying explicitly in this tread that his opinion is the right opinion and that people with other opinions are in his very words, idiots.

I realize that. He's done the same with me on the issue of foreign policy. I get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

I wasn't saying that the scientific opinion is the only valid opinion. I was using scientific consensus to demonstrate that SDW's opinion is exactly that. An opinion.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

What kind of safety? Moral safety?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

That, my friend, is also a matter of opinion.

Yes. However, I'd argue that we could say, fairly logically, that if we say we value human life and that we'd want to err on the side of caution about what is or isn't human life, then the "safest" position to take, given those suppositions, is to assume human life begins at conception. At the very least I'd think we'd want to proceed with great caution in allowing someone to terminate the life of another if that other is possibly human.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

I have presented my opinion as opinion.

Fair enough, and I have also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Actually, the question of when life begins is irrelevant to te abortion debate.

I disagree. It is directly related since the issue of abortion speaks specifically to what one human being can do to another living entity that is quite possibly, even probably, also a human life.

I disagree. It is directly related since the issue of abortion speaks specifically to what one human being can do to another living entity that is quite possibly, even probably, also a human life.

Actually, I was wrong to say it's irrelevant. However, it absolutely is not the only point of relevance. It doesn't automatically trump all other issues in question here, as most people holding the Anti-choice position would have everyone else believe.

Actually, I was wrong to say it's irrelevant. However, it absolutely is not the only point of relevance. It doesn't automatically trump all other issues in question here, as most people holding the Anti-choice position would have everyone else believe.

I agree that it is not the only relevant issue, but I believe it is a major and critical one. I can also easily argue that the issue of what a woman can or cannot do with her body is also not the only point of relevance that trumps all other issues as most people who support abortion "rights" would have everyone else believe.

P.S. Do we get to refer to you as "anti-choice" on the issues where you appear to oppose choices for other people?

Why is that life not sacred once it leaves the womb? Should it not have free access to healthcare to keep it well and free access to food and shelter to prevent hunger and exposure? Why is it that the vast majority of those who are very much against legal abortion are the same people who are against social safety nets and universal healthcare?

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

It's easy to understand their position, BR. It's all about sin. Those slutty women who don't want a baby and have gotten pregnant anyway are the scum of the scum and no longer deserve rights. Even if they were raped. They should marry their rapist for giving them the joy of the child, and they were probably dressed provocatively to begin with.

As far as healthcare goes, the people who can't afford to pay for it out of their own pockets have committed an even more egregious sin... The sin of not being financially successful, in other words, not being productive. They are all leeches and don't deserve to be taken care of by hard-working folks like us.

It's easy to understand their position, BR. It's all about sin. Those slutty women who don't want a baby and have gotten pregnant anyway are the scum of the scum and no longer deserve rights. Even if they were raped. They should marry their rapist for giving them the joy of the child, and they were probably dressed provocatively to begin with.

As far as healthcare goes, the people who can't afford to pay for it out of their own pockets have committed an even more egregious sin... The sin of not being financially successful, in other words, not being productive. They are all leeches and don't deserve to be taken care of by hard-working folks like us.

Why don't you stop outline the caricatures you have in your head about what motivates those with whom you disagree. It doesn't further civil, reasonable and rational discussion. It simply erects barriers to understanding and discussion. But then you probably already knew that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Forget the fact that all this is exactly opposite what Jesus taught.

What Jesus taught was directed at individuals caring for and helping other individuals. I believe Jesus' teachings were about changing the hearts of people to help others voluntarily from the love and gratitude they have due to the grace they've been given. I don't recall him suggesting or commanding that I should go take from person A in order to help person B.

What Jesus taught was directed at individuals caring for and helping other individuals. I believe Jesus' teachings were about changing the hearts of people to help others voluntarily from the love and gratitude they have due to the grace they've been given. I don't recall him suggesting or commanding that I should go take from person A in order to help person B.

And it is contrary to what Christ taught. Take his Parable of the Good Samaritan, for example. People commit similar acts of true charity every day without being compelled under threat of violence - by individuals calling themselves a government - to give of their time, talents, and property.

The moment such aggression is used to compel peaceful people to do any such thing it ceases to be charity because they are not acting out of genuine love or compassion. People who are forced to be charitable are really acting, first and foremost, in their own best interests. For if they dont comply, they risk having their property seized or being caged or killed by The State.

If the Samaritan had robbed another man walking along the road in order to pay for the care of the injured traveler, it would be ridiculous to try to justify the Samaritans robbery as a charitable act on the part of the man he robbed because the stolen money/property was used to help someone else.

Picture a group of individuals robbing you at gunpoint and saying: Well be using your money to help feed the homeless. Thank you for your charity. Would that justify the robbery?

Yet that is exactly what a group of individuals - who happen to have the designation of government associated with them - are doing.

The social contract is not robbery, and it is a compassionate arrangement. You just don't like it not because it doesn't fit in with Christ's teachings, but because it doesn't fit in with Rand, Mises and Friedman's teachings.

The social contract is not robbery, and it is a compassionate arrangement. You just don't like it not because it doesn't fit in with Christ's teachings, but because it doesn't fit in with Rand, Mises and Friedman's teachings.

You appear to be OK with killing in many circumstances. If I recall correctly, you are for the death penalty. You have been in favor of wars (which kill innocents--collateral damage is the nice term that obfuscates the true harm). What is it about a mass of cells sucking nutrients out of a woman that elevates it to a higher status?

We're not talking about status, or when abortion should be legal. We're talking about when life begins, and that is all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

You say this like it's a fact. It's an opinion. In fact, it's not even an opinion that is shared by the majority of the scientific community. In fact, the majority of the scientific community now defines conception as implantation, not fertilization. Yes, this definition has changed, perhaps by political motivations, perhaps even by moral motivations. But where the fuck do you think your definition of human life and conception come from? Thin air? Personal observation? Laughable.

The problem between these two schools of opinion is that one of them ignores the third factor, the woman.

MJ responds to this better than I could. See below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

As is the statement that life does not begin at conception. And yet those who believe it doesn't begin at conception quite frequently assert their opinion as if it were fact.

Besides the fact that we don't determine facts by polling the opinion of some specific group of individuals (there's a name for that fallacy), the scientific community is not the only source of knowledge in the world.

More importantly though, scientific facts related to the humanness of an embryo (e.g., DNA, future growth, etc.) actually support the belief that human life begins at conception and that this is simply an early stage of development and maturity of a human-being. Arguably the "safer" position to hold (in terms of protecting human lives) would be to assume it is a human life until proven, conclusively that it is not.

But where the fuck do you think your definition of human life and conception come from? Thin air? Personal observation? Laughable.

Actually that is irrelevant to the question of when life begins. It only becomes relevant when the question of what can or cannot (or should or should not) be allowed to be done with these two lives (the baby and the woman) comes into play.

Agree with you 100%. In fact, this discussion is proof positive of my statement that the left refuses to acknowledge ANY argument that does not work to the benefit of their ultimate goal (in this case, unlimited abortion). As I wrote previously, we can discuss when abortion should be legal/illegal. That's another argument. But tonton, BR and jimmac cannot do that. They won't acknowledge that life begins at conception because that means abortion is taking a life...and they are not having any of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

Tell me why you would believe that.

Why wouldn't you? Upon fertilization, the egg starts dividing (reproducing) almost immediately. It is a developing life form even before implantation. that which is not alive does not divide/reproduce. Keep in mind, I'm not using this to state that I think abortion should be illegal. That's another matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Did I do that here? It's my opinion that life begins when a baby takes its first breath, but it's also my opinion that a viable life has value as well as an actual life.

Oh boy. Now we're getting into semantics. Is a fertilized egg alive or not?

Quote:

I think except in medical cases where the mother's life is at serious risk or in rare cases with a court order showing a valid excuse, abortion should be illegal after the first trimester.

Agreed.

Quote:

But this is my opinion, and I acknowledge that there are other well-meaning, valid opinions out there, and that this is a matter of debate, and of personal values and opinions, not of fact. SDW, who actually had the gall to call liberals 'elitist' and make a thread about it is saying explicitly in this tread that his opinion is the right opinion and that people with other opinions are in his very words, idiots.

Whatever...out of context.

Quote:

I wasn't saying that the scientific opinion is the only valid opinion. I was using scientific consensus to demonstrate that SDW's opinion is exactly that. An opinion.

Here we go again. You liberals get yourselves all twisted up in semantics and backtracking. Were you or were you not arguing that life doesn't begin at conception?

Quote:

What kind of safety? Moral safety? That, my friend, is also a matter of opinion.

I have presented my opinion as opinion.

Actually, the question of when life begins is irrelevant to te abortion debate.

It's not irrelevant. It's not the only facet, either.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

The so-called "social contract" is a component of political and moral philosophy. You toss it out as if is as much a fact as gravity or the Earth revolving around the Sun.

I can easily argue that the "social contract" is a construction of people who want to coerce other people into doing what they think they should be doing.

Then you would be wrong. The social contract in the united states is a collective agreement made by representative democratic process. We're not a dictatorship or oligarchy, which would make your point valid. Part of the process of determining your obligations is made by you. You are not powerless. Nor are you autonomous. No man is an island.

Then you would be wrong. The social contract in the united states is a collective agreement made by representative democratic process. We're not a dictatorship or oligarchy, which would make your point valid.

Oh dear God.

There's no "contract" there and it's delusional to think so. What you describe doesn't resemble the concept of a contract in any way, shape or form any more than two wolves and a sheep entering into a "contract" for what will be served for dinner is a "contract."

The closest thing we have to a concept of a "social contract" would be the United States Constitution and the assumption that elected representatives will be constrained and bound by it. But I don't know what we do when 99% of these so-called representatives merely pay lip service to being bound by it. I'd say all bets are pretty much off in terms of any kind of "social contract" in any meaningful definition of what that is.

And today's vacuous bumper sticker wisdom is brought to you by tonton:

And you didn't choose your parents either. A murderer disn't agree not to murder people. Steve Ballmer never committed legally that he would give to charity and he probably doesn't do so willingly. But if he didn't, he would be crucified.

There's no "contract" there and it's delusional to think so. What you describe doesn't resemble the concept of a contract in any way, shape or form any more than two wolves and a sheep entering into a "contract" for what will be served for dinner is a "contract."

The closest thing we have to a concept of a "social contract" would be the United States Constitution and the assumption that elected representatives will be constrained and bound by it. But I don't know what we do when 99% of these so-called representatives merely pay lip service to being bound by it. I'd say all bets are pretty much off in terms of any kind of "social contract" in any meaningful definition of what that is.

Can you get past the word? You know very well that the word 'contract' in the phrase 'social contract' is metaphorical.

And you didn't choose your parents either. A murderer disn't agree not to murder people. Steve Ballmer never committed legally that he would give to charity and he probably doesn't do so willingly. But if he didn't, he would be crucified.